Comparative analysis of low-income urban housing policies in Iran, China, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States

Introduction
Since the twentieth century, the right to housing for society has been recognized in most developed countries as one of the rights of citizens and has gradually become the responsibility of the governments of those societies. However, in developing countries, despite the emphasis on the importance of housing as a basic need and a fundamental right, a significant percentage of urban households are unable to provide it. Thus, having housing is becoming more and more complicated and household conditions are becoming more critical (Short, 2007: 199). Therefore, in order to determine the importance of housing in development and management programs and resource allocation, it is necessary to establish a close relationship with housing goals and policies and general and general goals and policies of social and economic development in urban programs.
Methodology
The present research is qualitative in terms of research, comparative and nature and in terms of purpose, it is developmental and in terms of methodology, it is a content analysis and of qualitative type. In the case-by-case comparison method, several items that can be in the form of macro, medium, and micro units are compared. These cases may have different identities in terms of their scope and variables. Usually, as the number of cases increases, which form large units such as civilizations, their volume and number decrease, but the number of related and hidden variables in these unit’s increases. Because large and large units are prone to cover multiple variables, and vice versa, by limiting the range of units, although their number increases, these cases or units cover fewer variables. Given that the ultimate goal of this research is to compare the structure of housing policy studies with Iran, identify deficiencies, shortcomings and strengths in housing policy and finally provide suggestions for improving the desired structure. To achieve this goal, the structure of Iran's low-income urban housing policy has been compared with four countries: China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. The selection of these countries is based on the issue of low-income urban housing policy structure, which has had successful experience in this field. On the other hand, the selection of these countries by accessing information and statistics from the World Housing site has also been documents, books and articles. It then compares the detailed information of these countries based on the criteria of "macro-policies for collecting and extracting their main idea and comparing them with each other". Therefore, according to the types of comparative methods that have been briefly discussed in the theoretical foundations, a large-scale (large) method has been used for the research.

Results and discussion
A review of the experiences of Australia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the field of housing and low-income urban housing policy at various national, regional, and local levels shows that the success of the programs at the three levels of It has been achieved through the creation of a local, regional institution and the transfer of power from macro-national decisions to regional and local levels. In the United Kingdom, the government system, by policy-making in programs, examines the role of housing monitoring at various levels; And by giving authority to central and local states in legal programs and housing development policies, their role is considered strategic. In this country, the creation of an intermediate level government (or institution) as a strategic institution with HSMO housing policy and urban planning programs. In China, the implementation of three housing programs (affordable and comfortable housing, the Future Housing Fund and cheap housing rental) showed that China has implemented political will, organizational reform, and organizational capacity at all levels of affordable housing on a large scale. It was made clear that China needs to integrate institutions from central government to local government to meet the housing needs of low- and middle-income families, and housing programs are an integral part of national and local economic policies. Another policy in China is to privatize public housing. This is done by transferring to tenants (. free, or selling and nominal cost). Therefore, housing privatization is a good way to provide affordable housing in some countries, including China. In Australia, much of the planning and decision-making process for urban housing and low-income housing is the responsibility of local governments, and central governments oversee local government affairs by setting macro-policies. In the United States; The state and local planning perspective, with an emphasis on private sector participation and encouragement, is essential as a necessary tool to meet the real needs of the people and not based on the will of the central government. The independence of central and local governments in various sectors, decision-making and decision-making, guarantees accurate problem-solving and the realization of plans and programs. Despite fundamental differences in national, regional, and local planning methods, it is possible for regions to compete for housing development, and from these approaches, the concept of policy-making becomes clear. While the macro-planning structure of Iran practically does not allow the transfer of authority. Power is transferred to the provincial branches of the central government, and this power takes place at a time when, due to the selection of government representatives as hierarchical by the central government directly, the officials of the relevant institutions practically protect the interests of government officials. It leads to regional and local interests

Conclusion
The results of this study address the housing policy structure at three levels: national, regional, and local, and how the three issues are addressed with China, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. He compared their similarities and differences in terms of the four dimensions of institutional and local participation in housing policy, the role of government in the structure of housing policy, the attitude of the housing planning system, the relationship between national, regional and local programs. And it examines the structure of the housing planning system. Another result of this study was to seek to understand and explain how it is possible to achieve the development of low-income urban housing.